Effectiveness of Resin-Based Sealants with and without Fluoride Placed in a High Caries Risk Population: Multicentric 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A split-mouth randomized clinical trial was carried out to assess the effectiveness of sealants in preventing carious ICDAS (International Caries Detection and Assessment System) 3-6 lesions within a 2-year follow-up. We evaluated the effectiveness of 2 types of resin-based sealants, with and without fluoride, their retention rates, and the caries risk factors related to their outcomes. The study included 663 tooth pairs in 400 children (aged 5-15 years) considered to be at high individual caries risk (ICR) and presenting permanent molars free of caries or affected by ICDAS 1-2 lesions. In the first randomization, molars were either randomized to the treatment group receiving a dental sealant or the control group (nontreatment), and in the second randomization the sealant material to be used in the intervention group was selected. Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were employed. At the 2-year follow-up, 483 tooth pairs were assessed: sealed molars had 83% (adjusted HR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.15-0.20) less risk of developing ICDAS 3-6 lesions than molars without sealant. The magnitude of the protective effect was lower among teeth with ICDAS 1-2 lesions or with occlusal deep fissures than without. If the total retention rate of sealants was 70% at 2 years, sealant loss was not associated with the risk of caries (HR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.92-1.79, p = 0.14). Sealants allow the prevention of new ICDAS 3-6 lesions or progression of noncavitated carious lesions in children at high ICR, and the effect of the sealant was similar regardless of whether it contained fluoride or not.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".